Nor do I. Only from a religious perspective can one make such an argument. The intrinsic value of a person's life is no more or less than that of yours or any other living thing for that matter.

Well where do you think the intrinsic value comes from?

Why should anything have an intrinsic value. The value of a thing is what you bestow on it.

Oops. That is not related to any post. I just messed up some editing of my following post.

personally i would want manson to be free simply because of freedom of speach. he has a right to say or do anything he wants — OmniscientNihilist

Welcome to the future.

I would say something like joy or happiness has intrinsic value.

That poster has been banned.

:up:

But you would not knowingly take a life?

Nobody with any sense could see things as you do, words have power and when they aim and result in murder, the punishment should fit the crime. I am done debating the matter with you, what you are saying - and even about Hitler, it's just silliness.

Yes, if I had a good reason. Self defence for example.

Why should anything have an intrinsic value. The value of a thing is what you bestow on it. — ovdtogt

But we do ascribe some idea of sanctity to life and the taking of it is regarded as the worst crime a human can commit. Why?

Yes, if I had a good reason. Self defence for example.[/quote]

But still, your answer suggests that you need a very good reason for doing it.

Edit: and interestingly enough you chose a reason that is most acceptable in society, that you had a good reason to do it, an accepted defence.

I imagine my threshold for what justifies taking a life is below the average persons, perhaps well below. Rapists, pedophiles, murderers, slavers, sex traffickers...The loss of any of those lives would be perfectly fine to me.

Those people you accept having their lives taken are people who have attacked the sanctity of life. Their death is commensurate with their crime. So it does seem to me that you do ascribe some sanctity, some intrinsic value to life

Its the merit of life that gives it value, lives with no merit I dont really care about. So its not intrinsic. Id say the opposite.

You dont seem to think anything has intrinsic value, is that correct? — DingoJones

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Nothing can have intrinsic value, it’s nonsensical, I don’t even know what it would mean. Something is supposed to have value even though no one wants it. That is, it’s valuable without being valued. That is, it is valuable even though it’s not valuable. A = not A is obviously a fallacy.

When you say that happiness has intrinsic value, the meaning of “intrinsic” is different. We want happiness because we want it itself, not because we want to use it to gain something else. We certainly want it, it’s the thing we want the most, so it’s extremely valuable. The other things that some say have intrinsic value (in a different sense) no one may want at all, and then it can’t be valuable.

I used the comatose person as an example of case where it is possible for a life to have no value. But sure, if someone for whatever reason still values that thing in a vegetative state, even that has value.
You see, although I don’t think life has intrinsic value, I do think it has value in most cases, so it’s a little difficult to come up with an example of when it hasn’t. Like I said earlier, something, a life, can have value for itself, being appreciated by itself, and that’s not the same as intrinsic value.

As an extension of Aristotle's and Kant's ethics, the short answer would be yes.

You mentioned Charles Manson. Consider politically and ethically a consistent across-the-board theme of being opposed to killing of any kind, with some exception. What would that look like?

As a broad brush; it means no capital punishment, no abortion, no wars, et al.. Is that an extreme form of idealism that one could theoretically aspire to with some exceptions? Sure why not.

Ask yourself the question of, when humans contemplate the act of procreation, whether they're thinking about killing other humans and whether their motivations would be against the sanctity of life. I think it's safe to say their logic would be relative to life being sacred and having intrinsic value. Could that be part of the reason why you and I exist (why our parents had us whether planned or unplanned)?

And is that too idealistic, unrealistic, or something else? Maybe I'm missing something obvious not sure...

Or perhaps a metaphysical question would be, does one have an intrinsic will to live or a will to die?

Its the merit of life that gives it value, lives with no merit I dont really care about. — DingoJones

What would you regard as ‘merit’?

[quote="DingoJones;355461" the merit of life that gives it value, lives with no merit I dont really care about. So its not intrinsic. Id say the opposite.[/quote]

I feel that I might not have made by post clear enough.

Taking the life of a murderer or rapist is fine with you. That’s because you regard their crime as heinous. And what was their crime? It was the assault on the sanctity of someone else’s life.

For you that deserves the death sentence. That is because you regard life to have intrinsic value and it should not be interfered with in any way by another.

Thumbs up

What would you regard as ‘merit’? — Brett

The things about that life that are worthwhile or valuable to society, for example a virtuous person, or a skilled person. This opposed to life itself being whats worthwhile/valuable.

I feel that I might not have made by post clear enough.

Taking the life of a murderer or rapist is fine with you. That’s because you regard their crime as heinous. And what was their crime? It was the assault on the sanctity of someone else’s life.

For you that deserves the death sentence. That is because you regard life to have intrinsic value and it should not be interfered with in any way by another. — Brett

Its not the assault on lifes sanctity, the crime is only heinous if the life has merit, otherwise I don’t really care.
I think we are just using terms a bit differently.
Edited to add: i do not think that life should not be interfered with in any way, and its exactly because I dont see life as having sanctity that I lack any real concern for the lives of murderers.

The things about that life that are worthwhile or valuable to society, for example a virtuous person, or a skilled person. — DingoJones

What merits would a three year old child have?

Depends on the 3 year old. Generally I would expect there to be things... parents, siblings or friends that care for the child, most of the time even a 3 year old brings something to the table, a collection of traits that net benefits for society or will benefit society. I dont have a very high bar, meaning Im not asking much more than just not ruining things for other people.

But we do ascribe some idea of sanctity to life and the taking of it is regarded as the worst crime a human can commit. Why? — Brett

Preservation of the species: Our ability to work together as a 'social' group is a survival mechanism. We are a very weak species and our strength is in numbers. A kind of herd mentality through social cohesion. The lives of member of the same group are considered 'sacred'. This is not the case for members outside of this group (the other, the stranger). These people can be killed with impunity.

Anything that contributes towards the preservation of (our) life and/or lives collectively can be considered to be 'sacred' and having 'intrinsic value'.

This is not the case for members outside of this group (the other, the stranger). These people can be killed with impunity. — ovdtogt

Try it.

Thumbs up — 3017amen

Thanks. It’s always nice to know that you’re making sense after all.

Historically this was the case.